Battleship powder ram question?
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:24 am
Battleship powder ram question?
The rammer operator rams the projectile until it is seated, the rotating band must be forced into the rifling so that the projectile will not move to the rear when the gun is elevated. The rammer-man rams 6 powder bags, the rearmost bag not more than 4" from the mushroom when the breech is closed (a +4" gap between the last bag and the primer might prevent the powder from igniting, causing a misfire) When using reduced numbers of bags or 55 lb reduced service bags this step is a little tricky, the reduced service bags are smaller in diameter as well as shorter, If they are pushed too far into the breech, elevating the gun barrel will cause the bags to flop back against the mushroom head, this will result in the red patch of black powder igniter to slump out of position where the primer charge cannot get to it. On April 16, 1989 there was an explosion in a gun turret on the U.S.S. Iowa, the experiment being done on the center gun required the loading of only 5 bags of powder. There were two basic kinds of shells, a 2,700 pound armor piercing shell and a 1,900 lbs. high explosive shell. The lower weight shell required more powerful powder, called D-846. The D-846 bags could not be used with the 2,700 pound shells, and were actually stenciled with "WARNING: Do Not Use with 2,700-pound projectile". The experiments involved placing 5 bags of D-846 propellent behind a 2,700 pound shell.
OK now to my question, and PLEASE PLEASE this is not for a discussion on what caused the IOWA turret explosion....
1- When the guns are raised how do the 6x standard powder bags not drop back on the primer 4" under it?
2- How could the Rammer-man push 5x D-846 powder bags in....the right distance into the breech while leaving the required 4"?
3- Does the increased space between the 5x D-846 powder bags and the base of the 16" projectile change any ballistics?
(see photo below)
4- And finally.....If a hypothetical ultra-modern layered propellant, with split stick powder was developed for a hypothetical
BB 16" gun with only 3 powder bags necessary for a full charge, how would one ram it.......hypothetically speaking?
The rammer operator rams the projectile until it is seated, the rotating band must be forced into the rifling so that the projectile will not move to the rear when the gun is elevated. The rammer-man rams 6 powder bags, the rearmost bag not more than 4" from the mushroom when the breech is closed (a +4" gap between the last bag and the primer might prevent the powder from igniting, causing a misfire) When using reduced numbers of bags or 55 lb reduced service bags this step is a little tricky, the reduced service bags are smaller in diameter as well as shorter, If they are pushed too far into the breech, elevating the gun barrel will cause the bags to flop back against the mushroom head, this will result in the red patch of black powder igniter to slump out of position where the primer charge cannot get to it. On April 16, 1989 there was an explosion in a gun turret on the U.S.S. Iowa, the experiment being done on the center gun required the loading of only 5 bags of powder. There were two basic kinds of shells, a 2,700 pound armor piercing shell and a 1,900 lbs. high explosive shell. The lower weight shell required more powerful powder, called D-846. The D-846 bags could not be used with the 2,700 pound shells, and were actually stenciled with "WARNING: Do Not Use with 2,700-pound projectile". The experiments involved placing 5 bags of D-846 propellent behind a 2,700 pound shell.
OK now to my question, and PLEASE PLEASE this is not for a discussion on what caused the IOWA turret explosion....
1- When the guns are raised how do the 6x standard powder bags not drop back on the primer 4" under it?
2- How could the Rammer-man push 5x D-846 powder bags in....the right distance into the breech while leaving the required 4"?
3- Does the increased space between the 5x D-846 powder bags and the base of the 16" projectile change any ballistics?
(see photo below)
4- And finally.....If a hypothetical ultra-modern layered propellant, with split stick powder was developed for a hypothetical
BB 16" gun with only 3 powder bags necessary for a full charge, how would one ram it.......hypothetically speaking?